I think I just found a major contradiction in theoretical physics.

Dialectical Materialism - Quantum Mechanics

Quantum Physics, dialectics and society

Marxism and Quantum Mechanics

Marxism and the New Physics

Tumbling down the rabbit hole...

originally posted by: iamthevirus
The quantization of energy is actually a cheat, this is a well known fundamental flaw even Einstein acknowledged.
...

Can you link a citation for that well known fundamental flaw? Also, what exactly did Einstein say about it?

I know Einstein received the Nobel prize around 1921-1922 for his work related to the quantization of light energy in the photoelectric effect:

When Einstein analyzed the properties of the blackbody radiation in 1905, using his deep insight into statistical mechanics, he was led to the inescapable conclusion that light itself must be quantized in amounts E = hf, where h is Planck’s constant and f is the frequency of the light field. Although this equation is exactly the same as Planck’s from 1900, the meaning was completely different. For Planck, this was the discreteness of the interaction of light with matter. For Einstein, this was the quantum of light energy—whole and indivisible—just as if the light quantum were a particle with particle properties. For this reason, we can answer the question posed in the title of this Blog—Einstein takes the honor of being the inventor of the quantum.

I watched the video which doesn't seem directly related to anything you wrote above the video, though it might be indirectly related to the 1935 paper called "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?" which listed Einstein as an author though it didn't accurately reflect his own views and it was written primarily by one of the other listed authors.

As George Box said, "All models are wrong, some are useful." So if we take that as our starting point rather than the "completeness" perspective, the question then becomes "how useful is the model?". If it's useful for something like 99.9999999999% of the universe as ErosA433 mentioned, that's extremely useful. Even Newton's model of gravitation which can't be rated that higly due to exceptions at high relativistic velocities or in high gravitation is still so useful otherwise that NASA still uses it to calculate spacecraft trajectories in spite of the existence of more complicated and more accurate models like general relativity.

Moreover I think the general consensus is that physics theories can generally never be "proven" but only shown to be consistent with experiments and observations. I can't say that's a "fundamental flaw", that's just the best we can do with science.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Introverts gonna zoom in, extroverts gonna zoom out...

So like nature eh?

Gottlob Frege

"Moreover, his lifelong project, of showing that mathematics was reducible to logic, was not successful"

a reply to: Arbitrageur

For mathematics to be logical there would have to be no 0

Because nothing doesn't exist... (existence is some-thing not no-thing)



Zero must be denied or you will forever live in fear of it...

a reply to: iamthevirus
a reply to: iamthevirus
I asked you to explain this further with citations about the well-known fundamental flaw in the quantization of energy, and what Einstein said about it.

"quantization of energy is actually a cheat, this is a well known fundamental flaw even Einstein acknowledged."

I am not seeing how either one of those replies is responsive. I didn't ask about zero or nothing, yet that's what your reply talks about.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Mathematicians are actually afraid of infinity, the linears can't process it.

In fact 4 of the pioneers of the Quantum uncertainty principal committed suicide.

oh the horror of "forever" it just doesn't compute for them...

a reply to: iamthevirus
In spite of your saying that "quantization of energy is actually a cheat, this is a well known fundamental flaw even Einstein acknowledged.", I can only assume based on multiple replies that fail to cite what Einstein said that acknowledged "quantization of energy is actually a cheat", that you can't or won't cite what Einstein actually said, so maybe you made it up? If you didn't make it up and he actually said that I'd like to know exactly what he said.

6:45 to 11:35

ok one more...

"Eternity is terrifying"

"It still has existence is just doesn't end so we have to look at it a different way"

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
a reply to: iamthevirus
In spite of your saying that "quantization of energy is actually a cheat, this is a well known fundamental flaw even Einstein acknowledged.", I can only assume based on multiple replies that fail to cite what Einstein said that acknowledged "quantization of energy is actually a cheat", that you can't or won't cite what Einstein actually said, so maybe you made it up? If you didn't make it up and he actually said that I'd like to know exactly what he said.

Quantization of energy was a cheat because Planck adjusted the data to conform to observations in the ultraviolet catastrophy.

It worked, and has worked and has given us new avenues and modes thought, but the fundamental flaw remains.

Planck's math in effect was an "invention" it didn't/doesn't exist in nature, Planck fabricated it to fit. (He didn't "discover" it, he invented it)

These are pre-Nazi Germans (Marxists) were talking about here in Copenhagen...

And Einstein was a Jew boy patent clerk who stole their thunder.

---

We have Physics and Math, Philosophy and Theology and we have Music and the Arts... perhaps we need a new language, or could it be we just need to learn to communicate better?

originally posted by: iamthevirus

originally posted by: chr0naut
And since everything has discrete quanta of measurements,

"Quanta" that's like little groups of measurements right?

Little groups of everything...

Enter the Marxist realm of science, we'll call it quantum physics.

No. Quantum relates to counts of indivisible things.

Living organisms can't be chopped in half and stay living, so there is a minimum quanta on living organisms. That means that there are minimums for each individual organism, it has nothing to do with group dynamics.

That's the problem with trying to understand things from the filter of a political ideology. It has the problem of being based upon nothing but feelz and opinions.

a reply to: chr0naut

the definition of quanta is a "discrete bundle" little groups.

One has to watch for that double speak, very prevalent among European thought... for how can something be discrete if it's a bundle? Europeans love combining contradictions (positives and negatives)

I'll give you another one, how can something be a Principle (a fundamental truth) if it is Uncertain?

That old Deutsch just lacks the expression/syntax I suppose...

originally posted by: chr0naut
That's the problem with trying to understand things from the filter of a political ideology. It has the problem of being based upon nothing but feelz and opinions.

Are you trying to say science isn't political? yeah man wow... cool

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

I'm quite keen on the idea that we live in a holographic simulation, and that what we perceive as our 3D space, is actually an illusory projection formed with 2D data on the event horizon, the edge of the expanding bubble universe itself - we are 2D imprints being projected into an apparent 3D space, which itself may not exist in a 'real' sense.

Read the Holographic Universe by Dr Michael Talbot. Excellent book.....

originally posted by: iamthevirus
a reply to: chr0naut

the definition of quanta is a "discrete bundle" little groups.

One has to watch for that double speak, very prevalent among European thought... for how can something be discrete if it's a bundle? Europeans love combining contradictions (positives and negatives)

I'll give you another one, how can something be a Principle (a fundamental truth) if it is Uncertain?

That old Deutsch just lacks the expression/syntax I suppose...

We were referring in this thread, specifically to physics. Which does not define a quantum measurement as a group of anything.

In physics, atoms and molecules emit and absorb energy only in discrete quantities and not in a continuous manner. Max Planck named those discrete quantities as quantum[or quanta].

The energy of a quantum of a radiation is directly proportional to its frequency. Planck introduced a constant (surprisingly named Planck's constant), whose value is 6.626*10^-34Js to try and put definite values on the minimum energies observed in multiple experiments.

And this lead to the formula 'E=hv' (which means the energy is equal to Planck's constant, times the frequency of the associated radiation). As a way to calculate that indivisible quantum of energy.

I also checked out several definitions, from all sorts of online dictionaries, as well. I could find no mention of "groups" or "bundles". Eg: Quanta Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

originally posted by: iamthevirus

originally posted by: chr0naut
That's the problem with trying to understand things from the filter of a political ideology. It has the problem of being based upon nothing but feelz and opinions.

Are you trying to say science isn't political? yeah man wow... cool

Science is science - that which arises out of the application of the scientific method.

In politics, people who have their particular idiosyncratic hypotheses, despite the failures of previous effect of those of similar hypotheses, or of the absence of any past experience, attempt to enforce their delusions upon reality, and they usually assume that the historic results of some sort of popularity contest is validation enough.

Tolkien stated in his Letters that although he did not think "Absolute Evil" could exist as it would be "Zero"

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: iamthevirus

originally posted by: chr0naut
That's the problem with trying to understand things from the filter of a political ideology. It has the problem of being based upon nothing but feelz and opinions.

Are you trying to say science isn't political? yeah man wow... cool

Science is science

As Quantum Marxism so often struggles to express, there is an interconnectedness between everything, they just can't see it so they comprehended it not.

the dark energy...

a reply to: Arbitrageur

...the 1935 paper called "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?" which listed Einstein as an author though it didn't accurately reflect his own views and it was written primarily by one of the other listed authors.

Did Einstein actually say or write that the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paper did not reflect his own views? If so, why did Einstein allow himself to be the lead author on the paper if it did not reflect his views? Or did his views change later? Did Einstein also back off from "God does not play dice"? (Which also denotes displeasure with quantum mechanics.) I'd appreciate learning more about this issue if you have any references to things written by Einstein himself concerning displeasure with EPR.